Is Leakage Possible in AGS000?

[plummiecat]

Does this look like leakage under the table?

 

[xeoh85]

Yes, and yes.

 

[Christina...]

I would have no reservations purchasing and AGS0 stone. My diamonds IS looked similar to this and it has no leakage under the table at all.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that diamond! I have a diamond that has a lighter spot than that in that area and I can assure you it is not visible and does not hurt light performance. ACA's don't have leakage that result in poor light performance. You are really overanalyzing!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Most likely the stone is titled in the IS. But even if its not, that is nothing to concern yourself with. Unless having a super-calafragilistic-expealidocious perfecto mundo is what you are after.

 

[Laila619]

Yes, it's minor leakage, but in person probably not noticeable. Still, you could look for a stone with a better Idealscope image if it bothers you.

 

[plummiecat]

Thanks for the replies. It's ACA so I expected everything to appear pretty close to perfect.

 

[Laila619]

It is pretty close to perfect, especially compared to the other stones out there. It will be a beautiful diamond. However, I've noticed that among the ACA line, there are different 'flavors' of ACAs if you will. Some have steeper pavilions and some have shallower pavilions. I'm wondering if this particular ACA has a pav around 40.9? Also, when you look at the Sarin scans, some ideal diamonds are cut with tighter crown and pavilion ranges than others.

 

[plummiecat]

Yes, the PA is 40.8 and the CA is 34.9. Would you explain a little more what this means? Thanks.

 

[yssie]

Yes, and yes, as xeoh said.

Visually, practically, this will be a beautiful stone with no demerits.
If, however, one of the reasons you want an ACA is to *know* that your stone is "perfect" under the IS scope, whether or not you can see a difference in-person with your eyes, this one doesn't fit the bill. As Laila said.


As always, there is no tool or system that is perfect for all purposes of evaluation - HCA, GIA EX, AGS0, or anything else. If you want a certain type of stone and you know that you are particular about certain things, you need to evaluate each potential stone to see if it meet your specific requirements. In this case, AGS0 by itself is no guarantee of "no unnecessary leakage" - AGS0 is no guarantee of anything other than AGS0, which will always result in a visually attractive RB but not necessarily one that has "ideal" light return by your standards or the usual PS IS check

AGS0 DQD http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1355422.asp


AGS0 DQD http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1389957.asp


AGS0 DQD http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1450982.asp
35/41.4/57.6/79

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am sorry, but I have never seen an ACA that looked even reamotely close to one of those JA stones.

 

[Karl_K]

Yes, the PA is 40.8 and the CA is 34.9. Would you explain a little more what this means? Thanks.

Have them check and make sure it is the right image for that diamond.
I would not expect that image from a 40.8 pavilion ACA.
can you post the ASET and or a link to the diamond?

 

[plummiecat]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794542.htm

Thanks for your help!

 

[Karl_K]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794542.htm

Thanks for your help!

The ASET does not match the IS image.
Therefore I think I was right, wrong image.
Contact you rep and have them redo the IS image and make them aware of the issue.

 

[Laila619]

Yes, the PA is 40.8 and the CA is 34.9. Would you explain a little more what this means? Thanks.

Have them check and make sure it is the right image for that diamond.
I would not expect that image from a 40.8 pavilion ACA.
can you post the ASET and or a link to the diamond?

Me either, unless is it possible the pavilion isn't tightly cut and there could be a big variance?

 

[TitanCi]

Yes, and yes, as xeoh said.

Visually, practically, this will be a beautiful stone with no demerits.
If, however, one of the reasons you want an ACA is to *know* that your stone is "perfect" under the IS scope, whether or not you can see a difference in-person with your eyes, this one doesn't fit the bill. As Laila said.


As always, there is no tool or system that is perfect for all purposes of evaluation - HCA, GIA EX, AGS0, or anything else. If you want a certain type of stone and you know that you are particular about certain things, you need to evaluate each potential stone to see if it meet your specific requirements. In this case, AGS0 by itself is no guarantee of "no unnecessary leakage" - AGS0 is no guarantee of anything other than AGS0, which will always result in a visually attractive RB but not necessarily one that has "ideal" light return by your standards or the usual PS IS check

AGS0 DQD http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/I-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1355422.asp


AGS0 DQD http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/E-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1389957.asp


AGS0 DQD http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-SI2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1450982.asp
35/41.4/57.6/79

Thanks Yssie for taking the time to show us those ugly 000's! Gross!

 

[xeoh85]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794542.htm

Thanks for your help!

The ASET does not match the IS image.
Therefore I think I was right, wrong image.
Contact you rep and have them redo the IS image and make them aware of the issue.

I disagree. The inclusions in the IS and ASET images are a match. See below:





However, the inclusions for both images don't appear to match the AGS inclusion map for that stone:



Thus, the full set of images may be for the wrong stone.

- X

 

[Rhino]

Yes, the PA is 40.8 and the CA is 34.9. Would you explain a little more what this means? Thanks.

Have them check and make sure it is the right image for that diamond.
I would not expect that image from a 40.8 pavilion ACA.
can you post the ASET and or a link to the diamond?

Bear in mind 40.8 is the average of 8 plus you have the 16 lower half angles. I'd be curious to see an AGS VPA because that would explain it.

 

[plummiecat]

I spoke with the gemologist and he examined the stone and said the IS is correct, unfortunately. He did say the naked eye would not be able to tell and that a small percentage of ACAs will have a little white under the table. I then asked him about 2 other stones that didn't have images posted yet and he said both of then had leakage! I'm still thinking it over. The next closest stone is .08ct less than the stone I selected for my studs, and that much of a size difference bothers me. It's so difficult to find a mind clean stone!

 

[Karl_K]

Yes, the PA is 40.8 and the CA is 34.9. Would you explain a little more what this means? Thanks.

Have them check and make sure it is the right image for that diamond.
I would not expect that image from a 40.8 pavilion ACA.
can you post the ASET and or a link to the diamond?

Bear in mind 40.8 is the average of 8 plus you have the 16 lower half angles. I'd be curious to see an AGS VPA because that would explain it.

I know that a 40.8 pavilion average by itself does not mean there will be no under table leakage.
The key words were "40.8" "ACA" and "not expect".

 

[Karl_K]

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2794542.htm

Thanks for your help!

The ASET does not match the IS image.
Therefore I think I was right, wrong image.
Contact you rep and have them redo the IS image and make them aware of the issue.

I disagree. The inclusions in the IS and ASET images are a match. See below:





However, the inclusions for both images don't appear to match the AGS inclusion map for that stone:



Thus, the full set of images may be for the wrong stone.

- X

those look more like dust than inclusions to me.

 

[yssie]

I spoke with the gemologist and he examined the stone and said the IS is correct, unfortunately. He did say the naked eye would not be able to tell and that a small percentage of ACAs will have a little white under the table. I then asked him about 2 other stones that didn't have images posted yet and he said both of then had leakage! I'm still thinking it over. The next closest stone is .08ct less than the stone I selected for my studs, and that much of a size difference bothers me. It's so difficult to find a mind clean stone!

What are your requirements for mind clean, specifically? Can you list them?
What is the diametre of the stone you already have? (Or is having them very close in ct weight one of your requirements for mind-clean regardless of whether they are a good match in diameter?)
Is H&A important to you? Buying from the same vendor? etc.

 

[plummiecat]

I've been shopping for 1.6 total diamond studs, G/VS2. I want to purchase from WF because of their trade up policy and I have always wanted H&A. I've seen so many pics of leakage on PS and I was under the impression that ACA was cream of the crop and I did not expect to see leakage on the IS. "Mind clean" for me would be no large or black inclusions and super ideal cut. Bob at WF has inspected my 3 contenders and he said he has lined them up side by side and they all appear identical in fire and size. He said all inclusions are white. I asked Bob which 2 he would select and he replied that he would choose the cheapest 2 because they all appear identical. Here is a link he sent me comparing all 3. I'm sold on the .828. I need to choose between the other 2. The .811 has a few more inclusions than the .818.
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=2794543,2794542,2763635

 

[yssie]

I've been shopping for 1.6 total diamond studs, G/VS2. I want to purchase from WF because of their trade up policy and I have always wanted H&A. I've seen so many pics of leakage on PS and I was under the impression that ACA was cream of the crop and I did not expect to see leakage on the IS. "Mind clean" for me would be no large or black inclusions and super ideal cut. Bob at WF has inspected my 3 contenders and he said he has lined them up side by side and they all appear identical in fire and size. He said all inclusions are white. I asked Bob which 2 he would select and he replied that he would choose the cheapest 2 because they all appear identical. Here is a link he sent me comparing all 3. I'm sold on the .828. I need to choose between the other 2. The .811 has a few more inclusions than the .818.
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare.aspx?idnos=2794543,2794542,2763635

If Mind Clean is the issue go with this one http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2763635.htm
Super duper louper, nice hearts, VS2 in this size is absolutely guaranteed to be clean to whatever your specifications are, exactly the same diameter (5.98x5.99 & 6.01-6.04)

If that one doesn't satisfy the mind clean requirement then I am still not understanding your mind-clean requirements!

 

[plummiecat]

Thanks Yssie. Now I'm debating whether spending another $500 for VS1 is worth it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just wanted to say that I think .80 G VS is about my ideal for studs! I had some .75's but now wear .65 each G VS ACA's. I think you are going to LOVE them!!!